Acres of trees have been sacrificed to discuss the case regarding Julian Assange and the allegations made by two women.

It has attracted accusations of being politically motivated and being littered with administration errors that point to a conspiracy against the WikiLeaks founder.

Do the accusations stand up? Since the media isn’t doing their job, we’ve decided to take a stab.
We don’t want to get into the merits of the allegations; we look at some of the main accusations made about the due process itself.

But we also want to ‘crowd-source’ some of the claims made. Some have been answered but many others require further investigation. If you can help, post your response below or contact us.

1. Julian Assange himself said Swedish prosecutors were withholding evidence, suggesting he had been “set up.” (ABC News, Australia). Are they?

Julian Assange is currently wanted for questioning by police. It is common for authorities not to disclose any more evidence than they absolutely have to. In most cases they don’t reveal detailed evidence to the defence until after charge, according to legal rules on disclosure. This is because if a suspect is given all the information in advance of questioning, it gives him time to concoct a defence. If the suspect has a genuine defence, he or she shouldn’t need to see the evidence against them.

On a Newsnight interview Assange said “no evidence whatsoever needed to be produced”. This is true. He then says, “nothing has been provided to me at all… in English.”

According to Nick Davies in the Guardian (17th Dec), Assange’s Swedish legal team had seen the full allegations against him, though his lawyer maintains that other potentially exculpatory evidence has not been made available to his team.

2. Doesn’t the initial decision not to prosecute indicate conspiracy?

No. Rape is a specialist offence and the decision not to prosecute was taken by lawyers who have no special expertise in sexual offences. The case was re-opened by lawyers who do.

Lawyers legitimately disagree about the interpretation and application of the law a daily basis. It’s the very reason they exist. Prosecutors get things wrong. Indeed, this was a popular suggestion in the Ian Tomlinson case. It is entirely possible for prosecutors to decline to press charges despite there actually being a case. This not a rare occurrence.

3. Hasn’t Assange offered to cooperate with Swedish authorities?

While in the UK Mr Assange has agreed to be questioned. But it seems that this is conditional on seeing the the evidence in advance. That, for the reason just given above, is not something Sweden is prepared to accept. Assange told the BBC yesterday: “I was there for some five weeks after these initial allegations were made.”

His legal team say he stayed in Sweden for more than 40 days to answer the allegations, received permission from the Swedish prosecutor to leave the country and had made numerous attempts to cooperate with investigators since. “All of those have been refused,” one told ABC Television.

4. Why did the Swedish authorities issue an international arrest warrant?

According to the Guardian (Nick Davies, Guardian, 17th Dec), it followed a decision by Assange to leave Sweden in late September and not return for a scheduled meeting when he was due to be interviewed by the prosecutor.

Assange himself told friends in London that he was supposed to return to Stockholm for a police interview during the week beginning 11 October, and that he had decided to stay away. Prosecution documents seen by the Guardian record that he was due to be interviewed on 14 October.

Mr Justice Ouseley, who rejected the appeal against Assange’s bail, said earlier: “There is a debate, which may yet be had elsewhere, over whether the warrant is a warrant for questioning or a warrant for trial.” He was proceeding, he said, on the basis that it was an extradition warrant for trial. (Esther Addley, Guardian, 17th Dec)

5. His lawyer said it was a “CIA honeytrap”.

Mr Assange told the BBC yesterday that he was “misquoted”. He added: “I have never said that this is a honey-trap.”

ACCUSATIONS REGARDING THE UK

6. Why was bail denied at first?

The court was always likely to consider Julian Assange a flight risk. He is a foreign national, who tried to keep his address secret and no strong ties to the UK. He openly stated he was considering claiming asylum in Switzerland. The apparent conditions that were initially offered were insufficient to allay the court’s concerns.

7. Who appealed the Bail decision?

The CPS, independent of the Swedish Prosecuting Authority.

8. Are these holding charges?

The idea here is that the charges are being used to get Julian Assange into Sweden, where it will be easier to extradite him to the United States. This seems unlikely. As a matter of law, the UK has a much lower test for extradition than Sweden (“reasonable suspicion” rather than a “prima facie case”).

There is more detail here. Although it is possible that he could be extradited to Sweden to take advantage of a regime for extraditing him for trial only, this is a convoluted process and doesn’t appear to offer any real advantage to US authorities.

OTHER ACCUSATIONS

9. Doesn’t one complainant have CIA links?

There’s no credible evidence to support this contention. At its highest the suggestion is that she wrote an article sympathetic to US foreign policy. That doesn’t make anyone a CIA operative.

* * * * * * * * * * *

In a follow-up post I’m going to publish the main unresolved accusations made by Julian Assange himself, or his lawyer. Our focus here is not only the allegations themselves and whether they stand up, and clarifying the issues around due process in the UK and in Sweden.

Reader comments

No. Rape is a specialist offence and the decision not to prosecute was taken by lawyers who have no special expertise in sexual offences. The case was re-opened by lawyers who do.

Hmm. While this isn’t literally untrue, it could also be phrased as “the decision not to prosecute was taken by Stockholm’s chief prosecutor, who has prosecuted or supervised the prosecutions of hundreds of sexual assault cases; the decision to reinstate the charges was taken by a surreal unit which acts independently of local prosecutors, by someone who proudly admits on their bio that they specialise in inventing new sex crimes”.

The CPS, independent of the Swedish Prosecuting Authority.

Cite?

Also, 8 is a strawman. Nobody (sane) is claiming it’d be easier to extradite him from Sweden; the sane variant (which is true, although obviously doesn’t mean there is a conspiracy) that if he’s in prison or bailed to a known location, the Americans have more time to come up with a case that could scrape through the UK courts, and less risk of him disappearing before they manage to cobble something together.

The first parallel that came to mind for Ny’s “find something the sane authorities don’t think is a crime, and push the boundaries of the law until you can show it is one” unit was this delightful chap.

Please Sunny, provide the anti-wikileaks brigade with more irrefutable evidence why Assange is a brutal, serial rapist. Perhaps you’d also like to point to the fact, as John Humphries did, that – shock horror – he may have had sex with numerous women in the past!

Clearly his anti-Americanism is linked to his sexual insatiability, which itself a symbol of the depravity the ‘hard left’.

…How anyone can still believe this is anything *but* politically motivated persecution is beyond me…and the comparison to the Witchsmeller Pursuivant by JohnB is very apt.

the bio you link to doesn’t obviously include the claim by Ny to “specialise in inventing new sex crimes” or that she runs a “surreal unit” (a team that prosecutes sex crimes against children) or that her habit is to “find something the sane authorities don’t think is a crime, and push the boundaries of the law until you can show it is one”. Can you show me what I am missing?

I can almost guarantee that Assange will not be prosecuted for these alleged crimes. All this will do is a) cancel out wikileaks as an effective organization and b) ensure that Assange will be extradited to the USA where he will face a show trial for wikileaks activity.

The happy liberals who spot some kind of feminist cause are acting as useful idiots to discredit and eventually destroy wikileaks.

However, on the last point around CIA links I think the accusations go deeper than her having written a pro-US article. Isn’t she supposed to have worked for an anti-Cuban/anti-Communist organisation and pro-US policy NGOs?

I’m *not* saying she has CIA links, I’m just saying I don’t think you’ve explored the actual accusations on that specific point.

Did you hear Assange’s interview on Radio 4. If not go to play back. I cannot understand why people think that Assange is somehow special and shouldn’t have to abide by the law. He said the allegations were the result of the women “getting in a tizz”! This is just misogonist and shameful from someone apparently working in the pursuit of justice and truth. Since when has the left condened sexual assult?

Good to see an analysis of the processes that have made the public domain and/or can be reasonably inferred. Issue 8. is where it get more suppositional. However I would like, in parallel, this area to be explored further. The US authorities do seem to be/are exploring how they can charge Assange / WikiLeaks, on grounds which seem to be stretching the credence of jurisdiction. There are questions about this which have broad and substantive implications for all journalists.

What Ben Goldacre suggested and Sunny is making happen is a level headed examination of the the *facts* including what the laws actually say and how the accusations *made by both sides* stand up.

Do you have some information you are not sharing? or is this just that you “know” that there is a conspiracy?

Sunny and Bens point is that if there is a conspiracy the way we see things play out will be contrary to what the laws actually say. Currently, while it seems that an alleged rape is being taken more seriously than normal, the laws do seem to be being followed from what I read above.

and lastly if you really do think there is a government conspiracy surely the *only* way commentary like this will effect it *is* by identifying that conspiracy, if it exists, and perhaps derailing it.

@ 8 but if he is guilty, then that really doesn’t matter. if he did it, then he should be investigated for those crimes. the fact that the US may use this as politcal capital should not be used to criticise women going to the police to report sexual assault. we should rightly criticise the american govt if they put on a big show trial. but it shouldn’t be used to say the women should not have gone to the police if he is guilty.

most sexual assaults go unreported. the way these women have been hung out to dry, and assumed to be liars, could really make that worse.

“I just find it staggering that anyone should think this trial is anything else but politically motivated.”

But that is the point. You may *think* that but you don’t *know* it and neither does anyone else for sure. The point of this article is to see if that is a fair assumption.

and yes, you may be right, it may well turn out to be a conspiracy, but if it is then there will be evidence that it is – we will be able to see clearly that the facts do match what the laws say should happen.

Due process must be allowed to be followed; there is no reason for the casual observer to assume Assange is either guilty or innocent. I too think Wikileaks is a ‘good thing’ but that does not mean that Assange is incapable of unacceptable behaviour. Sadly, if Assange is guilty, Wikileaks will be tainted regardless of whether or not Wikileaks deserves to be tainted; so many of us thus wish Assange to be innocent. On the other hand, if he is guilty, it is vital that sexual offences against women are able to be prosecuted.

@6: “conduct methodological and legal development within the area of crimes of violence and sexual offences” – i.e. to try and evolve, not just follow, the law.

@7: Yes, the charges that were eventually presented to the High Court included a previously unmentioned charge that would, backed by suitable evidence, be prosecutable in England. We all know this. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to consider ways in which an innovative and ambitious prosecutor running a specialist, autonomous unit may be able to bring accusations following rather less due process than under a more conventional prosecution process.

(also, fairly clearly, Ny’s unit doesn’t just prosecute sex crimes against children. The subtle clue here is that Assange isn’t accused of sex crimes against children. The fact that Ny’s unit *primarily* prosecutes sex crimes against children, but has decided to jump in here, doesn’t immediately suggest due process and good faith to me; YMMV)

@9: Yes, you’re right. That’s the problem with this article – it commits the same sins that too many of Assange’s defenders (and no, that doesn’t include me) tried to after the accusations against him were clarified in the High Court as rape accusations, of pretending the accusation doesn’t exist rather than addressing it.

The honest answer to the CIA question would be “Ms A went to Cuba as the guest of a US-backed NGO connected with various CIA-funded anti-regime activist. However, if you’re going to go and protest against the regime in Cuba, which is a reasonable activity, then your chances of running into someone the Yanks have paid off at some point approach 100% so it’s not particularly informative”.

All this will do is a) cancel out wikileaks as an effective organization and b) ensure that Assange will be extradited to the USA where he will face a show trial for wikileaks activity.

I think I agree with John on this specific point.

Sunny, thanks for this post, this sort of investigation is exactly the sort of thing that blogs &c should be doing openly, I believe in the rule of law, and also believe that sex crimes are frequently treated poorly by prosecuting authorities.

If the allegations have substance, then the law should be applied correctly, if they don’t, well, this is Sweden, not a country known for regular miscarriages of justice that I’m aware of.

Assembling evidence and putting forward facts to allow the reader to make their own judgements? Oh, the horror, it’s obviously part of an anti wikileaks pro US plot. FFS…

‘This is because if a suspect is given all the information in advance of questioning, it gives him time to concoct a defence. If the suspect has a genuine defence, he or she shouldn’t need to see the evidence against them.’

I think conspiracy theorists are nut jobs but this sounds like a fucking lousy system.

You should have the right to see evidence against you whether have a cast-iron defence or not: the fact you might have been angaged in a live TV debate with leaders of all the major political parties when an alleged offense was committed elsewhere shouldn’t prevent you from knowing the details of the allegation against you, or your accuser’s details, etc.

And restricting the time you have to assess that information on the grounds you might have time to ‘concoct a defense’ is pathetic.

You should have the right to see evidence against you whether have a cast-iron defence or not: the fact you might have been angaged in a live TV debate with leaders of all the major political parties when an alleged offense was committed elsewhere shouldn’t prevent you from knowing the details of the allegation against you, or your accuser’s details, etc.

I think you are confusing questioning and trial here – there is a legitimate concern on behalf of the investigating agency not to allow suspects access to the evidence before questioning as obviously they will be able to concoct a story to explain it, which would undermine the entire point of questionning people. However, in a trial it is (in all western countries?) not acceptable to introduce new evidence without the defence being shown so that a defence can be introduced. I can’t see anything lousy about this.

One of the best things I’ve seen on this site. I note the comments at the bottom can be divided into those who ‘know’ there is a conspiracy (despite the fact no evidence has been presented to explain this knowledge) and those who are dealing with the facts in the same way as the original article.

OK. But you are editorializing and/or inferring rather a lot. Not necessarily unreasonably, but I mean, it wasn’t as if we can read what you wrote then click on the link you provided to see it backed up in a straightforward way. Having previously described the Swedes as nuts for not regarded sex without consent as rape unless force is involved, I’m surprised to see you take such a dim view of those who want to develop the law. Where does the slant she’s pushing things beyond where “sane people” would have it, come from? What’s “surreal” about a sex crimes unit with a flexible remit? You could be correct that having a unit that accustomed to dealing with crimes against children suddenly take on this case does raise questions about why the organization that one would expect to take on the case has not done so.

Nice to read an unbiased article simply stating the facts as they stand.

Getting quite sickened by those who feel assange can evade legal questioning (since August) relating to a sexual incident just because of his wikileak links.

Honest question is how would you feel if one of those women was a close friend or relative of yours? Would you still be saying he has nothing to answer?

Sex crimes are always problematic to investigate and prosecute as the victim is always.discredited. keeping the accused anonymous UNLESS serial rapist might help stop this poor treatment of victims and help conviction rates.

Well, sunny, the first bit of my first was sarcastic, if you need any pointers.

It is just astonishing that so much effort should be poured into the attempt to someone treat this case as the politically unmotivated, impartial course of law.

Again, I would ask the useful idiots on this thread: If it is all and political charade and Assange knows this, how else is meant to respond? He’s done the most one could possibly ask of an innocent man (talk to the authorities, not hide, hand himself in to the police, ask for the permission of the Swedish authorities for him to go to Britain etc…) and yet he’s being depicted by some on this thread (as elsewhere) as shifty (like that idiot @LabourRedRose who didn’t like the sound of the chap on radio –> rapist).

He’s done what most innocently accused would do and evidently feels very insecure about going back to Sweden (assuming he knows he is innocent). Who wouldn’t?

(How would you like to be characterised – useless idiot perhaps? or is the other side of your coin on the idiot/clever person axis? abuse of other people in a debate isn’t really my style but you seem to feel that it brings something to the table)

So essentially your position is that we must not question anything Assange has claimed, because to your mind it is all obviously true?

No, of course we shouldn’t treat Assange like a Jesus figure. However, he has been through a pretty much assiduous scrutinizing process after which we have to at some point assume that the charges are nonsensical (hence the great comparison to the Witchsmeller Pursuivant). John Pilger has dealt with this in far more detail than anyone can imagine (http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/protect-assange-don-t-abuse-him). For me, still believing that this is all simply the natural course of law is at best naive (hence ‘useful idiots’) at worst conniving.

Mark Stephens has said that the chief prosecutor in Stockholm decided not to prosecute the case and so the lawyer for the complainants took the case to a regional prosecutor in Gothenburg where the offences did not even take place.

What actually happened is that a regional prosecutor in Stockholm made the decision to prosecute, this was overruled by the chief prosecutor and then the lawyer applied for a review of this decision to the specialist prosecution office dealing with sexual offences. Although this office is based in Gothenburg, it is a national office and does not deal with offences in the Gothenburg region only. It was recommended that there should be a prosecution and this recommendation was adopted by the director of public prosecutions, who overruled the decision of the Stockhom chief prosecutor and restored the decision of the prosecutor who first looked at the case. A new prosecution was never attempted in Gothenburg.

“Do the accusations stand up” – not sufficiently for the Swedes to actually press charges.

It is also very dubious that a European Arrest Warrant is applicable in circumstances where a prosecutor only wants to have a nice little chat.

This is has become one of most famous cases in the world – the Swedes have had plenty of time to press charges – so far they haven’t and it’s hard to see how interviewing Assange will make one iota of difference given that he has ALREADY denied being a serial rapist.

I’m surprised the OP seems entirely oblivious to the implications for Assange’s reputation (given the international dimensions of the reporting) – not to mention that significant harm inflicted on the accused, in the form of solitary confinement, apparently based on risible concerns that he was/is an absconding risk (even though he remains a figure of enormous interest for numerous secret services).

I’m sure the anti-WikiLeaks lobby will be delighted the longer this debacle is dragged out – isn’t it time for the Swedish authorities to either shit, or get off the toilet?

I just find it staggering that anyone should think this trial is anything else but politically motivated.

It all makes sense! Assange really honestly believes he is the victim of a CIA plot to have him banged up in Gitmo. That’s why he is resisting being extradited to lick-spittle Sweden which enjoys an especially submissive relationship with the USA. He knows it will be that much harder to extradite him from the UK, which has a long and proud reputation of independence viz a viz the Yanks and imposes the strictest requirements on any extradition request. Just ask Gary McKinnon…

@35 the a&e charge nurse: “…not to mention that significant harm inflicted on the accused, in the form of solitary confinement…”

We call it a segregation unit in the UK; it is a unit to which vulnerable prisoners are admitted to protect them from the general prison population or from self harm. Occasionally prisoners are placed in a unit to remove the risk of violence by them to other prisoners. Prison authorities claim that segregation is not used as a form of punishment. Whilst I have the normal reservations about the credulity of that claim, prison reform groups do not appear to regard abuse of enforced segregation as a major problem in our problematic prisons.

In the case of Julian Assange, admission was at the request of the prisoner, which is common for those accused or convicted of a sex crime.

I sympathise with all prisoners who feel forced to enter segregation. Apart from the isolation and reduced facilities, prisoners still endure abuse (eg adulteration of meals served to them by other prisoners). Whatever the crime (and many in segregation are guilty of appalling offences), prisoners in segregation deserve the same treatment as other prisoners.

But Assange has not been treated any differently from other prisoners accused of a sex crime. He was admitted to a segregation unit, on his own request. Denial of that request, putting him at risk of attack by other prisoners, would have been treating him differently.

And if you are concerned about the treatment of those in segregation units, make a donation to one of the prison reform groups. Assange spent days in one; other prisoners will live in one for years.

Are you suggesting that the Swedish authorities should prosecute Assange before they have completed interviewing him? Before they have assessed all of the evidence and the rebuttals?

Assange will probably be extradited to Sweden to answer questions. He could have hopped onto a plane to Malmo any time, a flight most likely paid for by the Swedish tax payer. However prosecuting authorities in two countries and courts in the UK have determined that it is time for the games to end and for Assange to answer questions. Many people assume that a prosecution will be made *after* questioning.

(Note also the OP: “Mr Justice Ouseley, who rejected the appeal against Assange’s bail, said earlier: “There is a debate, which may yet be had elsewhere, over whether the warrant is a warrant for questioning or a warrant for trial.” He was proceeding, he said, on the basis that it was an extradition warrant for trial. (Esther Addley, Guardian, 17th Dec)”.)

[37] “But Assange has not been treated any differently from other prisoners accused of a sex crime” – one prosecutor did not think there was a case to answer while the second prosecutor presumably lacks sufficient evidence to press outright charges (but instead would like a chin-wag with Assange).

Mind you if the allegations have hung around this long and the British authorities felt it necessary to place Assange in solitary for a disappointing 11 days then surely he must be guilty of something?

[42] “One answer is that the prosecutors might wish Assange to revisit some locations in Sweden. Or that they may wish to display physical evidence that cannot be removed from Sweden” – cloak and dagger stuff, surely?

Look it’s not hard – if the Swedes REALLY think Assange is guilty of sexual violence then all they have to do is charge him and then the strength of the accusations can be properly tested.

Instead of lamenting the lack of time Assange spent in solitary why not ask yourself WHY the whispers and rumours have still not progressed to formal charges?

“Many people assume that a prosecution will be made *after* questioning…” By which I mean, the prosecutors will decide whether or not to pursue a court case, based on Assange’s answers alongside those of the two complainants. And that many people consider that a prosecution will follow that questioning.

That is not presumption of guilt. It is, however, the assumption of a UK judge that Swedish prosecutors will act after Swedish investigators question Assange. Prosecution does not equal guilt. (The quality of evidence for a prosecution is less than that for a court judgement of guilt.)

41 “you mean the strength of the prosecutions case depends on Assange admitting to being a serial rapist?”

Doesn’t it make sense to start a prosecution only after talking to a suspect? I mean he may be able to clear it all up so even what looks like hard and fast evidence to the police may turn out to be far thinner once they hear the suspect’s version of events.

Or he might confess to a lesser crime, the crime they are questioning him of or a different crime altogether. No point pressing charges until you’ve had the chance to speak to the suspect and get a little more light on the subject.

I’d certainly prefer the police to only consider charges *after* they spoke to potential defendants (except in exceptional cases) – it would save a lot of time and money for a start.

@43 the a&e charge nurse: “Instead of lamenting the lack of time Assange spent in solitary why not ask yourself WHY the whispers and rumours have still not progressed to formal charges?”

The question you should be asking yourself is, why are you unable to accept how law works?

Law is different in Sweden. Prosecution and investigation work differently. The people investigating Assange are human beings so it is unsurprising that the process is interrupted, not continuous; they fall ill, go on holiday or something else crops up. Witnesses change their statements. This is normal stuff. And as I wrote earlier, it is unlikely that formal charges will be presented until *after* Assange is given the opportunity for a rebuttal.

@43 the a&e charge nurse: “Instead of lamenting the lack of time Assange spent in solitary…”

A couple of points about the prosecution I have not noticed raised before.

The deliberately torn condom
1. Can anyone conceivably suggest a method whereby you could deliberately acheive this during sex (or am I deficient in this area)?
Can anyone suggest why anyone would want to?
Can anyone suggest how any rational prosecutor would believe they could convince a judge or jury that this really happened when there were no other witnesses?

2. There was no suggestion of physical violence, no visible signs of physical violence, no other witnesses, both women maintained cordial contact with Assange for some time after the alleged incidents and both only reported the incidents some days after they ocurred, after they had exchanged and compared stories.
Can anyone tell me – on what evidence – guilty or not- could Assange possibly be convicted?

Whether or not the alleged events happened, there has to be at least a reasonable prospect of conviction for a case to procede; I cannot see a shred of evidence other than highly tainted (and thus useless) circumstantial evidence.

[49] “The injustice to Julian Assange by placing him in segregation was committed by one man: Julian Assange” – oh, I see, Assange had himself admitted to Wandsworth, then realised that rapists are not viewed too kindly by some cons.

After all it’s unlikely such men would trouble themselves with the nuances of the Swedish legal system – or the semantic difference between rape and ‘sexual coercion’.

There are actually men who deliberately do this sort of thing and get off on it, there are even websites devoted to it.

Whether there’s a chance of a prosecution, let alone a conviction, is outside my ability to judge. Worth noting also that we don’t know all the evidence and have no idea about physical evidence, etc.

Also worth noting that sometimes people that’ve been the subject of a date rape of some time can act irrationally, or not really realise/come to terms with what’s actually happened to them for some time after the event.

That they were friendly with him after the fact isn’t evidence, in any way, that he didn’t do it. Whether there’s enough evidence for a succesfull prosecution isn’t ours to judge.

I think putting Assange in solitary was an injustice – it bothers me that people seem to be shrugging their shoulders about the use of such draconian measures.

You really don’t get it do you?

People remanded for sex crimes keep it quiet for a good reason, they are usually helped in this by the screws. Mr Assange however wouldn’t have been able to keep it quiet though, having had both the allegations and his mug all over the tv and papers. Add to this the arrogant way he seemed to come over in his radio interview and I’d say that rule 45 is about the safest place for him.

The smear campaign against Sweden we have seen lately, might actually be implemented by US authorities. They want people to believe Sweden can’t stand up for themselves. And the goal is to stop an extradition of Assange to Sweden, simply because an extradition to the US from UK is much easier to carry out, since the UK-US extradition treaty from 2003 (after 9/11) is much more US-friendly than the Swedish-US treaty from 1963.

But maybe most importanly, according to the European extradition treaty, Swedish authorities actually has to ask UK for permission anyhow, before they can extradite Assange, because he came from there. This means, 2 countries has to agree to an extradition from Sweden and that would be a really big problem for US authorities.

The sadest thing, though, is that almost every supporter of Wikileaks, including Assange himself, swallows this US bait. Don’t be a part of it. Turn this ship around, before it’s to late.

Is there a distinction to be made between ‘solitary confinement’ and ‘segregation’ even if they end up looking, at first blush, as the same thing?

I’d have thought, under the former regieme you might expect to be locked up for a lot of the time, yet under the latter, not so much.

The point being that one is punitive and the other is protective.

For how long was he refused internet access and on what grounds is a presumed innocent man barred from any media communication? And if it turns out that everyone is banned from internet communication, why was he later allowed ‘limited access’?

Was Assange really held in the same cell as Oscar Wilde? If so, how is it usually used? As a cell for serious criminals or what?

If we are to get to the bottom of this, some of this sort of stuff has to be debunked or explained too.

I think a couple of people have missed what this discussion is actually about:

@35 “Do the accusations stand up” – not sufficiently for the Swedes to actually press charges.

The question raised was not whether the accusations against Julian Assange stand up but rather whether or not the accusations of unfairness in the process, breach of human rights and of a huge global consipracy against him stand up.

@50 again misses the point by looking at the allegations against Julian Assange. In fact, we have no idea whether or not he is guilty and it is more or less irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is a consipracy against him. It is perfectly possible that he is not guilty and yet there is no conspiracy. I hope that someone will agree with the last statement to reassure me that the world has not gone mad.

It is perfectly possible that he is not guilty and yet there is no conspiracy.

No, I agree with that, it is very possible.

Like I said earlier, due process should take effect. He left Sweden promising he’d return for further questions, then decided not to. If he’s really worried about extradition to the US, and he came to Britain, he’s more stupid than I’m giving him credit for.

[56] christ on a bike – let me spell it out for you – I’m saying JA should never have been jailed in the first place given that he has nowhere to run (and was thus unlikely to be an absconding risk) and the allegations against him are so flimsy that one prosecutor decided there was no case and the second has insufficient evidence to proceed directly to charges.

2. There was no suggestion of physical violence, no visible signs of physical violence, no other witnesses, both women maintained cordial contact with Assange for some time after the alleged incidents and both only reported the incidents some days after they ocurred, after they had exchanged and compared stories.
Can anyone tell me – on what evidence – guilty or not- could Assange possibly be convicted?

It may not have been your intention, but I do have to point out that this paragraph contains at least two rape myths.

The first one being, “If there are no signs of physical injury, it wasn’t rape”, and the second one is, “If she spoke to him the next day, it wasn’t rape”. These are the kind of misconceptions that police and juries are being increasingly educated to realise are simply not true.

2 “The case was re-opened by lawyers who do” have “special expertise in sexual offences”. Expertise combined with a political agenda. The driving force, Claes Borgström, is on record as an official Social Democrat spokesperson arguing that all clients of prostitutes should be jailed, and has articulated similar “leading edge” views on rape.

I agree it is not unheard of for a lawyer to get involved in a high profile case that advances a genuinely held agenda. A laudable current UK example that comes to mind is David Allen Green with Paul Chambers and the Twitter trial. But that intervention does not appear to have a political motive.

Another legal query about Swedish conduct, the implications of which you may want to address, is that the 37-page interview file allegedly shows up a number of irregularities, including the lack of a full record of the women’s statements, or any video or audio record.

And in law, would the acknowledged coordination by Ms A and Ms W prior to their police statements taint their evidence ?

At least there is one upside from this train crash between outraged radfems and open government advocates furious at the public pillorying of their man – and a fair few who are both, being a tad conflicted. That’s the emergence of the #prataomdet hashtag. Swedish for “talk about it”, this is where women share experiences of crap sex by surprise, of which the patriarchy need to be more aware.

@maltrack, “Claes Borgström, is on record as an official Social Democrat spokesperson arguing that all clients of prostitutes should be jailed, and has articulated similar ‘leading edge’ views on rape.”

That’s not a “leading edge” view of prostitution in Sweden. Swedish law says that buying sex is illegal (but selling it is decriminalised). The centre-right haven’t repealed this.

The prevailing policy, as Bodström himself put it in an interview with Svenska Dagbladet in 2008, is that whilst it is already possible for people found to have paid for sexual services to be jailed for up to six months, a Supreme Court ruling set a precedent by which in practice convictions always result in fines.

Borgström called for the crime to be punished by “at least one year” in jail.

You’re right about those media reports, but they both rely on anonymous sources. We’ve no idea who the Mail’s “prison source” was and whether they’d have really known how segregation came about, and we’ve no idea by whom the Guardian was saying it was “thought” JA asked to be segregated.

Of course it’s possible for anonymous sources to be bang on, and exactly the people who are on the spot witnesses who know. But equally, they could be more or less anyone who thinks they’ve heard something. Anonymous sources have a sort of excitement of their own that can make us think they’re much more authoritative than they’d seem if we knew who they were. They could even be the same anonymous source, rather than two.

As against that we now have clear statements from JA’s solicitor about what happened – after I put the Daily Mail story to him for comment.

I see no reason to doubt what he says. I’m not sure any other conclusion is reasonable unless there’s anything more than prior statements by anonymous sources to undermine it.

Since it was reported on 9th December that JA had asked to be segregated from other prisoners, then why is it only now, two weeks later and when he’s not even in jail any more that you are suddenly complaining it somehow wasn’t his choice?

I have to take Mark Stephens at his word. To assume otherwise is to indulge in the same sort of speculation as the conspiracy theorists.

It is irrelevant to conspiracy theory, however, whether Assange was admitted to a segregation unit at his own request, or reluctantly under pressure from prison authorities, or under compulsion. The simple facts are that admission to segregation is consistent with Assange being treated in the same way as other prisoners accused of a sex offence.

2. There was no suggestion of physical violence, no visible signs of physical violence, no other witnesses, both women maintained cordial contact with Assange for some time after the alleged incidents and both only reported the incidents some days after they ocurred, after they had exchanged and compared stories.
Can anyone tell me – on what evidence – guilty or not- could Assange possibly be convicted?

It may not have been your intention, but I do have to point out that this paragraph contains at least two rape myths.

The first one being, “If there are no signs of physical injury, it wasn’t rape”, and the second one is, “If she spoke to him the next day, it wasn’t rape”. These are the kind of misconceptions that police and juries are being increasingly educated to realise are simply not true.’

You misunderstand me. I was not sugesting this is evidence that no rape ocurred, I was merely pointing out that there appears to be no evidence either way other than each parties word. I fail to see how a prosecution could be mounted on the ‘he said/she said basis’ I also think there is a slight difference between speaking to someone the next day and throwing a party for him the next day.

Pagar: you’ve been reading crap translations. The accusation is that he *initiated* sex when she was asleep; she woke up at some stage during and consented, but in the belief that he was using a condom (because she’d made him do so on previous occasions).

Zarathrustra/Colin: the violence thing is irrelevant. I’m curious about the second rape myth thing too – I know that ‘acting civilly to someone and not telling the cops the next day’ is consistent with acquaintance rape, but ‘throwing the person a party and going on the record about how excellent they are’…?

I am becoming a bit less sure what this thread is supposed to be about. I though it was supposed to be about clarifying what we knew as a fact, and what we didn’t know.

So, if that is right, why is john b throwing complete speculation ino this thread:

Zarathrustra/Colin: the violence thing is irrelevant. I’m curious about the second rape myth thing too – I know that ‘acting civilly to someone and not telling the cops the next day’ is consistent with acquaintance rape, but ‘throwing the person a party and going on the record about how excellent they are’…?

That is the sort of material that could only be satisfied by a trial.

If we are to do this properly then the point of this thread is not to speculate but to inform. Or say where there are gaps in what we know.

1) it is an established fact that one of the accusers threw a party for Assange and posted complementary things about him on the Internet after the alleged rape took place.

2) on an non-expert understanding, that does not seem consistent with the behaviour you might expect from someone who’s just had a serious crime committed against them by the person in question.

3) howevver, we know that there are specific ways in which rape victims often don’t behave in a way that one would deduce with a non-expert understanding, hence the whole point about dw’rape myths’.

4) my understanding of rape myths is that they’re more about avoiding confrontation, rather than still expressing strong positive feelings about the person in question. But my understanding here might also be flawed, hence why I was asking, given that I know there are people who comment and contribute here who are professional or serious voluntary researchers into the subject.

john, on phone forgive brevity. It can take some time for victims of date rape to come to terms in their own head with what has happened to them, what someone they trusted has actually done. I know of cases where a week or more can pass. Denial and disbelief can be powerful things for victims to overcome. Makes single case incidents almost impossible to prosecute, but this isn’t single victim.

Let us be clear about a few things. Miss A was the one who invited Assange to a party. Her allegations are not of rape but of sexual assault. Miss W alleges rape.

I do not know the position in Sweden but, in the UK, sexual assault includes a man grabbing the tracksuit bottoms of a woman and then attempting to pull her towards him (R v H [2005] EWCA Crim 732 – this case was pursued by the CPS and the defendant was found guilty by a jury). It is a very wide offence. Assange cannot have it both ways by saying that the allegations of Miss A are not very serious but, at the same time, finding it sinister that she spoke to him afterwards. For all the men out there, if you had a one night stand with the most beautiful woman in the world but, in the morning, you found £50 missing from your wallet, would that stop you from seeing her again? Would it no longer be theft if you did?

For what it is worth, I suspect that the allegations made by Miss A would not be taken further without the much more serious allegations of Miss W. However, it is sensible to rely on them as part of the wider context of the claims by Miss W. This is a sound tactical decision of the type made by prosecutors all the time.

I should emphasise that I take no view on whether Assange is guilty and nor can the prosecutors. So long as Assange refuses to speak to them, they only have one side of the story and they can only make a decision based on the information in their possession at the moment, i.e. the story given by Miss A and Miss W.

The point about it is allegedly to separate the wheat from the chaff. It doesn’t advance that prospect if you go off on one, or two.

You say:

Zarathrustra/Colin: the violence thing is irrelevant. I’m curious about the second rape myth thing too – I know that ‘acting civilly to someone and not telling the cops the next day’ is consistent with acquaintance rape, but ‘throwing the person a party and going on the record about how excellent they are’…?

That contains assumptions. You assume to know stuff that is not yet in the public domain. You don’t know how dominate he was nor how technically submissive she was. Nor do I. It is up to a court of law to determine, not you, not I.

Frankly you are going off on one. Until the evidence is presented, and Julian Assange is there to defend himself, we won’t know.

I think Assange’s comments RE point 1 (Julian Assange himself said Swedish prosecutors were withholding evidence, suggesting he had been “set up.” (ABC News, Australia). Are they?) need to be understood in light of his argument that he has been arrested, but not charged, in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is in Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.

It seems to me that this is a fair argument to make. I’m not saying he’s correct, but the point is he’s being detained using something called a European Arrest Warrant. And yet, he hasn’t been charged with anything. It does sound a bit like he’s been arrested without charge.

His point about not receiving anything in English is to do with the fact that if he’s charged with something, he needs to have this laid out for him in English. And he’s correct that this hasn’t been done.

In terms of the evidence against him, if he is charged with something, then, as I understand it, the Swedish prosecutors are obliged to provide copies of the evidence to his Swedish lawyers. Again, if you accept Assange’s argument that he’s been arrested without charge, it is fair enough for him to request for the evidence to be provided to his lawyers.

I don’t think you have addressed these points in your analysis so far.

“While in the UK Mr Assange has agreed to be questioned. But it seems that this is conditional on seeing the evidence in advance. That, for the reason just given above, is not something Sweden is prepared to accept.”

Can you provide any evidence for this assertion? As far as I know the Swedish prosecutors have never said anything like this.

As far as I know, the only explanation they’ve given for not interviewing Assange in the UK was in Time magazine, as follows:

‘Lead Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny says the latest arrest warrant was issued because Swedish law prohibits formal legal interviews over a telephone or video link. “We had a case in the southern Swedish city of Helsingborg where a suspect was heard via telephone, and it was heavily criticized by the Ombudsmen for Justice as not being in accordance with existing law,” she tells TIME. “The Swedish embassy in London is not Swedish territory in the sense that we can hold interrogations there without formal approval of British authorities.”‘

Is this true? I thought the prosecutors (Swedish equivalent of the CPS) were going after him.

There’s also another argument about what he’s wanted for. I as I understand it EAWs are valid for a prosecution/sentence – but not for investigations. All the media has that Assange’s warrant has questioning on it, and that’s what his lawyers are arguing. CPS is arguing that the warant is for prosecution. Justice Ouseley said “There is a debate, which may yet be had elsewhere, over whether the warrant is a warrant for questioning or a warrant for trial”. So we don’t know: the Swedes filled in the 1st warrant incorrectly, so it’s possible they may have buggered up the second too.

[…] Sunny Hundal has published an important piece at Liberal Conspiracy today – one that Benjamin Gray has contributed to, as I have I, a bit – arising from Ben Goldacre’s frustration that the mainstream media didn’t seem to be fact-checking the claims and implications of unfairness being made by or on behalf of Julian Assange over the last couple of weeks. […]